Not relative to the topic at hand; if you want a scenario, how about this one-A man has a bomb that he's strapping to himself and and plans on detonating it at a crowded market filled with women and children. In fact, all of your God-children will be there OzGeorge. If he gets there, almost all will die and/or be horribly maimed; both physically and psychologically. Two blocks away, you and another interrogator have captured a man whom you know can stop this by disclosing the bombers location. Unfortunately, he ain't talking and he wants your God-children dead. What will you do OzGeorge? What will you do...

Well only an idiot would think that someone who wants your family dead because he hates you will stop hating you and want your family to live if you torture him.But you see, once someone surrenders to the "logic" of demons- they become just as idiotic as they are and believe all kinds of stupid things.

Completely missed the point. No points awarded.

Fine by me. Just so long as you know that I hold the opinion that torture is never justifiable, is pure evil, is the work of demons, is subhuman, is abominable, is contrary to Christianity and completely irreconcilable with it.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Fine by me. Just so long as you know that I hold the opinion that torture is never justifiable, is pure evil, is the work of demons, is subhuman, is abominable, is contrary to Christianity and completely irreconcilable with it.

But why, if it is part of a war effort that is in self-defense? How is it any different than the other ugly aspects of war?

Fine by me. Just so long as you know that I hold the opinion that torture is never justifiable, is pure evil, is the work of demons, is subhuman, is abominable, is contrary to Christianity and completely irreconcilable with it.

To clarify, you think waterboarding is torture. You think someone who tortures is subhuman. Thus you believe someone who waterboards is subhuman.

If so, would you call this person who waterboards and whom you believe to be subhuman a monster?

Dear God! That you should even have to ask that question!Torture serves no purpose but to satisfy sadism and bloodlust. There is nothing self-defensive about it (see above).

Dear God back at you! So, you are okay with say a Marine sniper putting a bullet in someone's head at 1500m, or a B-52 carpet bombing a division of men as they sleep, or teenage conscripts getting blown up in an ambush, or any number of common acts of war I could mention, but if a known, self-confessed mass murdering terrorist gets some water poured over his face in order to interrogate him you cry sadism and bloodlust?

Dear God back at you! So, you are okay with say a Marine sniper putting a bullet in someone's head at 1500m, or a B-52 carpet bombing a division of men as they sleep, or teenage conscripts getting blown up in an ambush, or any number of common acts of war I could mention, but if a known, self-confessed mass murdering terrorist gets some water poured over his face in order to interrogate him you cry sadism and bloodlust?

Again, just to clarify.

Strange. I thought we were talking about self defense, not revenge.Do you consider revenge to be a Christian virtue?

« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 08:19:23 PM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Oz, let me ask you a question. When I was doing my basic in Great Lakes, was it torture to force the entire company to exercise until one or more of the recruits either passed out or threw up? As far as I know none of the Gitmo detainees had to suffer a face full of tear gas either, which is another requirement of Navy boot camp, which is pretty soft compared to Marine Corps training. Not to mention the Special Forces. Does every last man who ever served have a civil case against the government?

These men do not suffer any broken bones, burns, or any other permanent damage to their body. There are doctors on hand the entire time to prevent any serious trauma. The fact that anyone should even put these interrogation techniques in the same category as the Spanish Inquisition might be humorous if the potential for destruction were not so great. I'm sure many of our Greek and Serbian ancestors would be downright insulted to see all the ridiculous crybaby moralizing about this issue after what they had to endure under the Ottoman yoke.

I fear that the media has performed its partisan brainwashing all too well.

Did they do so willingly, Cyril of New York? Or was their liberty taken from them and these trials inflicted on them against their will?You Americans hold your liberty to be a sacred thing I believe, why do you have no qualms about taking away the liberty of others and torturing them?

« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 08:28:47 PM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

At least one good thing has come out of this: the truth.At least you are no longer claiming that "the United States does not torture", but are admitting that the United States does torture and thinks its OK to do so.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

As a Christian, I firmly oppose all torture under any circumstances. Also, my official Christian position is that all violence is wrong and that all war is inherently evil.

While I affirm these truths as the standard Christ has set, I realize that war is a great evil that can not be avoided in some cases, and even those who have to kill in self defense should do so with fear and trembling, and pray for God's forgiveness. We can not say these things are acceptable, or that they are not worthy of confession.

I think ozgeorge's problem here is that some of you are saying that some torture is acceptable, permissible, or whatever else. But it is not. However, sometimes it might indeed be necessary. But that doesn't make it OK. It doesn't mean that if one of you were up against a wall and somehow had to do something like this that your conscience would be clear, and that you wouldn't have to bring the act to your confessor.

Torture is a great evil, as is all war and killing. Sometimes we Christians engage in these things out of necessity, but they are never acceptable. They are never a part of the call that Christ himself has placed upon us. But life is complicated, and so is the defense of widows and orphans.

Dear God back at you! So, you are okay with say a Marine sniper putting a bullet in someone's head at 1500m, or a B-52 carpet bombing a division of men as they sleep, or teenage conscripts getting blown up in an ambush, or any number of common acts of war I could mention, but if a known, self-confessed mass murdering terrorist gets some water poured over his face in order to interrogate him you cry sadism and bloodlust?

Again, just to clarify.

Strange. I thought we were talking about self defense, not revenge.Do you consider revenge to be a Christian virtue?

I am talking about self-defense, are you having a conversation with some imaginary boogy man?

If we were talking about torture as a means of getting revenge, I would agree with you, I'm against torturing out of revenge.

I think ozgeorge's problem here is that some of you are saying that some torture is acceptable, permissible, or whatever else. But it is not. However, sometimes it might indeed be necessary.

So then is the United States word of promise worth nothing? Isn't the United States of America a signatory to the Geneva Convention? Even if you think torture is "necessary" (which I can't see it ever being), you promised that you wouldn't. If you don't keep your promises why make them? Why pretend to defend international law when you flagrantly break it?

« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 08:57:44 PM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

I think ozgeorge's problem here is that some of you are saying that some torture is acceptable, permissible, or whatever else. But it is not. However, sometimes it might indeed be necessary. But that doesn't make it OK. It doesn't mean that if one of you were up against a wall and somehow had to do something like this that your conscience would be clear, and that you wouldn't have to bring the act to your confessor.

I've not once said that I believe "torture" is acceptable, permissible or whatever else. I just don't think waterboarding in the particular cases we are talking about is torture.

Where I probably would agree with OzGeorge and many here is that when someone is hurt, intimitated, pressured, waterboarded, etc. for fun, sick thrills or whatever even in time of war, even if it's something short of actual torture, there is no place for it and I'm against it. I think abu ghraib was horrific and truly reprehensible.

So then is the United States word of promise worth nothing? Isn't the United States of America a signatory to the Geneva Convention? Even if you think torture is "necessary" (which I can't see it ever being), you promised that you wouldn't. If you don't keep your promises why make them? Why pretend to defend international law when you flagrantly break it?

Fortunately I am not a US ambassador, but even if I was, I have personally stayed faithful to this promise. I have never tortured anyone, unless you count my wife putting up with my long tirades about whatever is upsetting me any particular day.

Fine, I'll agree. The USA should not engage in torture as outlined in the international agreement. Are you happy now?

I think ozgeorge's problem here is that some of you are saying that some torture is acceptable, permissible, or whatever else. But it is not. However, sometimes it might indeed be necessary. But that doesn't make it OK. It doesn't mean that if one of you were up against a wall and somehow had to do something like this that your conscience would be clear, and that you wouldn't have to bring the act to your confessor.

I've not once said that I believe "torture" is acceptable, permissible or whatever else. I just don't think waterboarding in the particular cases we are talking about is torture.

Where I probably would agree with OzGeorge and many here is that when someone is hurt, intimitated, pressured, waterboarded, etc. for fun, sick thrills or whatever even in time of war, even if it's something short of actual torture, there is no place for it and I'm against it. I think abu ghraib was horrific and truly reprehensible.

I don't understand how you can claim that waterboarding done for fun is torture but waterboarding done for another purpose isn't torture. As far as I can see, torture is defined by the act, not the motive. The best you can possibly claim is that waterboarding is torture which is sometimes "justified" and sometimes isn't "justified". But its always torture.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

So then is the United States word of promise worth nothing? Isn't the United States of America a signatory to the Geneva Convention? Even if you think torture is "necessary" (which I can't see it ever being), you promised that you wouldn't. If you don't keep your promises why make them? Why pretend to defend international law when you flagrantly break it?

Fortunately I am not a US ambassador, but even if I was, I have personally stayed faithful to this promise. I have never tortured anyone, unless you count my wife putting up with my long tirades about whatever is upsetting me any particular day.

Fine, I'll agree. The USA should not engage in torture as outlined in the international agreement. Are you happy now?

I know I'm like a greyhound with a steak about this issue, but perhaps I should tell you that for six years I worked with "STATS" ("Sydney Torture and Trauma Survivors") and I saw the unbelievable human brokenness- often irreparable- in people who had been tortured in places like Latin America, Communist Romania, Egypt etc and had sought asylum in Australia. I also saw the other side of it as well when I met a man who had tortured "The Disappeared" in Chile under Pinochet- and he was the most broken of all. Fredrica Mathews-Green wrote an article entitled "The Wounded Torturer" about this phenomenon: http://www.frederica.com/writings/the-wounded-torturer.html

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

So then is the United States word of promise worth nothing? Isn't the United States of America a signatory to the Geneva Convention? Even if you think torture is "necessary" (which I can't see it ever being), you promised that you wouldn't. If you don't keep your promises why make them? Why pretend to defend international law when you flagrantly break it?

I know you are going to hate this answer George, but 'unlawful combatants' (who are in their own ways violating Geneva and Hague conventions) are not subject to POW status. Geneva is moot then. I'm not stating my support or condemnation, but just pointing it out.

Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

I know you are going to hate this answer George, but 'unlawful combatants' (who are in their own ways violating Geneva and Hague conventions) are not subject to POW status. Geneva is moot then. I'm not stating my support or condemnation, but just pointing it out.

You are absolutely right. I hate that answer. And the reason I hate it is because it is the lie used to convince the US public that torture of unlawful combatants is justifiable.The torture of unlawful combatants is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions.

Here is what the Geneva Conventions actually say about unlawful combatants who are not subject to POW status:

Quote

Article 45(3) "Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status and who does not benefit from more favourable treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall have the right at all times to the protection of Article 75 of this Protocol. In occupied territory, any such person, unless he is held as a spy, shall also be entitled, notwithstanding Article 5 of the Fourth Convention, to his rights of communication under that Convention.”

OK, now here is what Article 75 of the Protocol (which article 45-3 guarantees to unlawful combatants) says:

Quote

Atricle 75Fundamental guarantees

1 In so far as they are affected by a situation referred to in Article 1 of this Protocol, persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict and who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the Conventions or under this Protocol shall be treated humanely in all circumstances and shall enjoy, as a minimum, the protection provided by this Article without any adverse distinction based upon race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, wealth, birth or other status, or on any other similar criteria. Each Party shall respect the person, honour, convictions and religious practices of all such persons.

2 The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents:

(a) violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular:

(i) murder;

(ii) torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental;

(iii) corporal punishment; and

(iv) mutilation;

(b) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault;

(c) the taking of hostages;

(d) collective punishments; and

(e) threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.

3 Any person arrested, detained or interned for actions related to the armed conflict shall be informed promptly, in a language he understands, of the reasons why these measures have been taken. Except in cases of arrest or detention for penal offences, such persons shall be released with the minimum delay possible and in any event as soon as the circumstances justifying the arrest, detention or internment have ceased to exist.

4 No sentence may be passed and no penalty may be executed on a person found guilty of a penal offence related to the armed conflict except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by an impartial and regularly constituted court respecting the generally recognised principles of regular judicial procedure, which include the following:

(a) the procedure shall provide for an accused to be informed without delay of the particulars of the offence alleged against him and shall afford the accused before and during his trial all necessary rights and means of defence;

(b) no one shall be convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual penal responsibility;

(c) no one shall be accused or convicted of a criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under the national or international law to which he was subject at the time when it was committed; nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than that which was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed; if, after the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby;

(d) anyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law;

(e) anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to be tried in his presence;

(f) no one shall be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt;

(g) anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

(h) no one shall be prosecuted or punished by the same Party for an offence in respect of which a final judgement acquitting or convicting that person has been previously pronounced under the same law and judicial procedure;

(i) anyone prosecuted for an offence shall have the right to have the judgement pronounced publicly; and

(j) a convicted person shall be advised on conviction of his judicial and other remedies and of the time-limits within which they may be exercised.

5 Women whose liberty has been restricted for reasons related to the armed conflict shall be held in quarters separated from men’s quarters. They shall be under the immediate supervision of women. Nevertheless, in cases where families are detained or interned, they shall, whenever possible, be held in the same place and accommodated as family units.

6 Persons who are arrested, detained or interned for reasons related to the armed conflict shall enjoy the protection provided by this Article until their final release, repatriation or re-establishment, even after the end of the armed conflict.

7 In order to avoid any doubt concerning the prosecution and trial of persons accused of war crimes or crimes against humanity, the following principles shall apply:

(a) persons who are accused of such crimes should be submitted for the purpose of prosecution and trial in accordance with the applicable rules of international law; and

(b) any such persons who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the Conventions or this Protocol shall be accorded the treatment provided by this Article, whether or not the crimes of which they are accused constitute grave breaches of the Conventions or of this Protocol.

8 No provision of this Article may be construed as limiting or infringing any other more favourable provision granting greater protection, under any applicable rules of international law, to persons covered by paragraph 1.

I think ozgeorge's problem here is that some of you are saying that some torture is acceptable, permissible, or whatever else. But it is not. However, sometimes it might indeed be necessary. But that doesn't make it OK. It doesn't mean that if one of you were up against a wall and somehow had to do something like this that your conscience would be clear, and that you wouldn't have to bring the act to your confessor.

I've not once said that I believe "torture" is acceptable, permissible or whatever else. I just don't think waterboarding in the particular cases we are talking about is torture.

Where I probably would agree with OzGeorge and many here is that when someone is hurt, intimitated, pressured, waterboarded, etc. for fun, sick thrills or whatever even in time of war, even if it's something short of actual torture, there is no place for it and I'm against it. I think abu ghraib was horrific and truly reprehensible.

I don't understand how you can claim that waterboarding done for fun is torture but waterboarding done for another purpose isn't torture. As far as I can see, torture is defined by the act, not the motive. The best you can possibly claim is that waterboarding is torture which is sometimes "justified" and sometimes isn't "justified". But its always torture.

I didn't claim waterboarding for fun is torture. I just said there is no place for doing it or anything else intimitating, hurtful, etc. for sick games or fun whether it rises to the level of torture or not.

Doesn't it? What is the difference between that and the "coercive interrogations" of the Spanish Inquisition and the value of the "confessions" and "information" such "coercive interrogations" extracted?

Yawn. Useless and ridiculous comparison.

And I reiterate that there is difference between coercive techniques and torture.

As I asked above:

Would the techniques recently discussed in the media and in government (eg waterboarding, nudity and humiliation, banging heads into break away walls, mock executions, etc) be considered coercive interrogation techniques or torture?

That's an easy one...no. If you're merely inflicting psychological hardships, that's what an interrogation is. If one is too weak to hold up psychologically, that's their own moral failing, not the moral failing of the interrogator. The line between torture and interrogation is the line between physical and psychological hardship. Simply messing with someone's head is hardly torture, when you start putting in the thumb screws and applying hot irons or the rack, that's torture. Not that torture is always wrong, but it should certainly be very limited in its use...interrogation on the other hand should not be taboo in time of war.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

"Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. By forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences drowning and is caused to believe they are about to die."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

And here's a picture:

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Can you explain to me how waterboarding under any circumstances conforms to article 75 of the Geneva Conventions? (see above)

Yes, if it was done with a thimble full of water dropped delicately on their chin and then quickly wiped up by a really good looking nurse! Followed by a qualified psychologist offering an apology and counseling. Then in the midst of this kindness, in a truly heartfelt way, asking them to please tell us when the next terrorist attack they planned is going to occur. I'm sure that would have gotten the same results and conformed to the spirit of article 75 of the Geneva Convention!

We waterboarded at most a handful of top terrorists who admitted to being part of ongoing terrorist plans. There is NO evidence of us using it any other way. I have no problem "interrogating" them, as GIC so ably explained, in order to find out whatever we can to protect ourselves.

"Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. By forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences drowning and is caused to believe they are about to die."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

And here's a picture:

Yeh, it's so horrible that every day dozens of americans volunteer to have it done to them as part of their training. In fact, I'd wager that at least half the apartments of people spending time on this board probably look more alarming than this picture!

And Christopher Hichens volunteered to have it done to him, twice! Try real torture, i.e. broken bones, screws, etc. and see if he volunteers twice.

Yeh, it's so horrible that every day dozens of americans volunteer to have it done to them as part of their training. In fact, I'd wager that at least half the apartments of people spending time on this board probably look more alarming than this picture!

And Christopher Hichens volunteered to have it done to him, twice! Try real torture, i.e. broken bones, screws, etc. and see if he volunteers twice.

Then try it on your kids.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Can you explain to me how waterboarding under any circumstances conforms to article 75 of the Geneva Conventions? (see above)

when it works?

« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 10:45:44 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

You like to make up stuff. Where did I sugarcoat and imply it was a nice thing, or nothing seriousness. Waterboarding sucks. I just don't think that the way it was administered by us was "torture" in the sense you do.

Can you explain to me how waterboarding under any circumstances conforms to article 75 of the Geneva Conventions? (see above)

Can you show us where the Geneva Conventions are applicable?

Do you expect the Geneva Conventions to speak directly to the specific issue of waterboarding?

Well, under Aticle 75 of the Geneva Conventions (see reply 65), if warterboarding is not a form of “torture of any kind, whether physical or mental;” nor an “outrage upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment” nor “a threat to murder” then you should be OK. But I think you might run into problems with a practice which involves trying someone to a board against their will with their head downward and pouring water into their breathing passages to threaten them with drowning.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

I know you are going to hate this answer George, but 'unlawful combatants' (who are in their own ways violating Geneva and Hague conventions) are not subject to POW status. Geneva is moot then. I'm not stating my support or condemnation, but just pointing it out.

You are absolutely right. I hate that answer. And the reason I hate it is because it is the lie used to convince the US public that torture of unlawful combatants is justifiable.The torture of unlawful combatants is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions.

Here is what the Geneva Conventions actually say about unlawful combatants who are not subject to POW status:

Quote

Article 45(3) "Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status and who does not benefit from more favourable treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall have the right at all times to the protection of Article 75 of this Protocol. In occupied territory, any such person, unless he is held as a spy, shall also be entitled, notwithstanding Article 5 of the Fourth Convention, to his rights of communication under that Convention.”

That's nice, George. But they had a revolution here a while ago, and Acts of the British Parliament are not binding on the U.S.

« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 10:58:54 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Can you explain to me how waterboarding under any circumstances conforms to article 75 of the Geneva Conventions? (see above)

Can you show us where the Geneva Conventions are applicable?

Do you expect the Geneva Conventions to speak directly to the specific issue of waterboarding?

Well, under Aticle 75 of the Geneva Conventions (see reply 65), if warterboarding is not a form of “torture of any kind, whether physical or mental;” nor an “outrage upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment” nor “a threat to murder” then you should be OK. But I think you might run into problems with a practice which involves trying someone to a board against their will with their head downward and pouring water into their breathing passages to threaten them with drowning.

So in your opinion, what is an acceptable interogation technique for a known, self-confessed terrorist in our custody?

Yeh, it's so horrible that every day dozens of americans volunteer to have it done to them as part of their training. In fact, I'd wager that at least half the apartments of people spending time on this board probably look more alarming than this picture!

And Christopher Hichens volunteered to have it done to him, twice! Try real torture, i.e. broken bones, screws, etc. and see if he volunteers twice.

So in your opinion, what is an acceptable interogation technique for a known, self-confessed terrorist in our custody?

Well it isn't torture or threat of death. People will say anything, agree to anything to avoid suffering and death, so what's the point? The information is useless.Espionage is a much more effective and reliable way of gathering data.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

I have no problem "interrogating" them, as GiC so ably explained, in order to find out whatever we can to protect ourselves.

greekischristian has also renounced any Christian convictions on these matters, so to so readily affirm the position of one who is apostate is not exactly a point in your favor.

Whatever we must do to protect ourselves...

I affirmed his position on "interrogating". It's a good one. Surely you don't discount everything someone says just because they're not a card carrying Orthodox Christian or you don't like some position they hold? Or do just like the opportunity to use the word apostate?

And obviously my sentence was not intended to mean "do whatever we can to protect ourselves." If I wasn't clear, I meant that we should find out whatever we can via "interrogation" to protect ourselves.